Posted
by
msmash
on Friday March 17, 2017 @04:00PM
from the FBI-is-looking-at-your-tweets dept.

From a report on The Verge: An arrest has been made three months after someone tweeted a seizure-inducing strobe at writer and Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald. The Dallas FBI confirmed the arrest to The Verge today, and noted that a press release with more details is coming. Eichenwald, who has epilepsy, tweeted details of the arrest and said that more than 40 other people also sent him strobes after he publicized the first attack. Their information is now with the FBI, he says. It isn't clear whether these "different charges" relate to similar online harassment incidents or something else entirely.

"At 12:04:03, every screen in the building strobed for eighteen seconds in a frequency that produced seizures in a susceptible segment of Sense/Net employees."

I think you've got the wrong novel.

In Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron", everyone was required to be "equal" in all ways. People who were smarter than average were required to wear headphones with distracting noises, people who were stronger or faster than average were required to wear extra weights or confining clothing, and so on.

We've just had a case where a couple of deaf people got 20,000 videos taken offline because the videos were not closed captioned for the deaf.

No, someone didn't just get prosecuted just because he sent a tweet to a special needs person. He sent a tweet with the intent to cause him to have a seizure, a tweet that embedded the image, and Twitter being a platform where tweets "just appear" when you go to your Twitter page.

So that would be twitters fault for not coding in gif stoppers and user set filters. The attack is too much of a non-attack to be reasonable. The prosecution is unreasonable and inevitably will bring it to public consciousness and a whole string of attacks will result, especially from child, all because one fuss pot got their knickers in a knot and the FBI failed to apply common sense. So all the resulting attacks brought about by this prosecutions, can they in turn prosecute the original complainant for tr

The controls are not about prevent stalking. You seem to fail to grasp the concept, those control make stalking invisible to the end user, take all the reward from the stalker and simply end the problem. There should be a range of controls on all social media platforms, that allow the end user to filter and moderate their own feed. Most games have an ignore setting for chat, which is really quite useful, crazy politics and religion and just set them to ignore, they are still there, probably, maybe, but who

This is not a lawsuit, it's a criminal investigation. It's a criminal investigation because law enforcement believes that the perpetrator performed their act with the intention of causing a seizure to a specific victim.

What you're arguing is the equivalent of someone defending a violent felon beating a baby to death with a baseball bat by arguing somehow that this impedes your right to use baseball bats for anything at all, and that really it's the baby's fault for being weaker than everyone else.

How do you make a tweet strobe? Did he tweet a URL to some crappy flash-based website, or an animated gif, or video? Certainly there are twitter front ends that can read the tweet to you via voice, to help prevent this sort of thing from happening again. Maybe that's something that this writer should look into.

Except all the financial fraud done over the internet which is barely investigated. Organized crime is boring, but if a trivial incident makes the news then a prosecutor hits pause on his porn player and files charges.

Except all the financial fraud done over the internet which is barely investigated. Organized crime is boring, but if a trivial incident makes the news then a prosecutor hits pause on his porn player and files charges.

Here's a tip: if you do something illegal, try to stay anonymous. Complaining the cops should try to catch those who do first when you are caught doesn't prove you're not a criminal, it proves you are a whiney dumb criminal.

simple assault is not a federal crime even if we were to stipulate that it applies here. The further claim that cyberstalking happened is also very weak. Stalking needs more than a few emails over a very short period of time.

simple assault is not a federal crime even if we were to stipulate that it applies here. The further claim that cyberstalking happened is also very weak. Stalking needs more than a few emails over a very short period of time.

Any crime that crosses state lines becomes an FBI matter. That is *why* the FBI exists. One of their primary purposes is to have jurisdiction when no single state agency would clearly have jurisdiction. Their purview has expanded a bit since the agency was created, but that is the basic idea behind it. The failure to do that fundamental job in all respects led to the creation of the DHS.

simple assault is not a federal crime even if we were to stipulate that it applies here.

What about an assault crossing state borders? Sending something harmful with the intent to injure via the USPS is a federal offense, is sending one with e.g. UPS also? If it is, can this also be applied to forms of telecommunication?

The key to the case will be the mens rea, if the sender knew about the epilepsy and the image was intended to cause harm they've got a good case. The defense will be trying to show the sender didn't know but I imagine they'll tear his computer apart and find out if it was intentional.

The fact is that something like this should net an assault charge or depending on the severity even an attempted murder charge. There was intent to harm and harm was done. IMO this isn't any different than smearing someone with

you are describing a tort claim, not a federal crime at the end of the day we are still talking about minimal damages and harm. I think an argument for a simple assault may hold a little water but I am unaware of a federal statute that covers simple assault. We are talking about a minor misdemeanor at most, but that ignores the real free speech issues. I am also skeptical of the victims claim of having a seizure. Perhaps it's true and the evidence will show that the victim does not take antiseizure meds tha

you are describing a tort claim, not a federal crime at the end of the day we are still talking about minimal damages and harm. I think an argument for a simple assault may hold a little water but I am unaware of a federal statute that covers simple assault.

I have an epileptic son. Seizures are not the trivial things you seem to think they are. A grand mal seizure is often life threatening as it causes everything in the brain to go off kilter, including autonomic functions. When my son start having a seizure, he stops breathing, and if it goes on long enough, his heart stops beating. This has only happened once, and he had to be resuscitated. Most of the time, the lack of breathing induces hypoxia and that stops the seizure, but it is by no means a sure thing,

Posting a strobe flashy gif animation on a website? Not a big deal. Kinda douchey, but not a crime (even if someone does get a seizure from it but only because causing a seizure was not the intended result).

Sending a strobe flashy to gif to someone you know who has a seizure disorder and accompanying it with a message that says something to the effect of "I hope you get a seizure from this"? Definitely illegal because the stated intent is to induce a seizure (even if one is *not* induced).

It's kind of the online equivalent of mailing peanut dust to someone with a peanut allergy. Even if they don't get a bad reaction from it (say, because his mom opened it first and cleaned up before it hit him) then you will still be prosecuted for attempted assault because of the intent behind it.

I was thinking that a good physical-world parallel would be deliberately spraying peanut oil in aerosol or mist form in the vicinity of somebody allergic to peanuts. It's a form of physical attack that would not harm a typical person, but would be deadly to the target (and any bystanders who happened to share the allergy).

Or perhaps wearing or releasing a scent known to trigger a certain person's asthma attacks.

Certain people send rape and death threats all the time with the intent provoke a reaction. Occasionally some of them are arrested, and it's never the reaction that's the issue. It's usually the threat and possibly the stalking.

Here's the problem with that, though: Who gets to decide what the difference really is? Consider this scenario:

Someone sets up someone else for an ostensibly harmless practical joke.The joke happens, but the target is injured in the process, has to go to the ER. Charges are filed, a civil suit for damages is filed.

That's a rather extreme example, but well within the realm of possibility; the perpetrator of the joke can claim there was no intent to cause harm, but may be lying about that, but it doesn't matter. Harm was caused as a direct result, and he may well be criminally and civilly libel. Now, substitute sending someone something over the internet. Does it matter if there was intent to cause harm or not

This is not just sending someone a picture, and the courts are pretty good at distinguishing between real injury and claimed harm. The legal system already gets plugged up by idiots looking for revenge or payday.

Here's the problem with that, though: Who gets to decide what the difference really is? Consider this scenario:

Gee, if we only had some sort of official organization for determining injurious intent. Maybe it could be called a "court" and the people presiding would be called, "judges". Yeah, someone should totally invent that.

I've witnessed escalating shouting matches between neighbours which end up with the police arriving. The law becoming involved in such cases is not new.

Just like the McDonald's coffee case, a lot of people don't get why this case went to trial. There were genuine disagreements on what actually happened, and it took the investigation and trial to sort it all out.

There was at least one impersonation account involved, and as such, none of the actually-threatening tweets were from Elliot. But what the case ulti

Thankfully we live in a civilized world where possibility of injury isn't relevant and only real injury is. If we were to believe that a minor seizure happened to a person who has a history of seizures we are talking about only a very minor injury. Maybe a punch in the face for the average person, not quite the federal offense that is implied here.

And were I suffering a condition where flashing lights would debilitate me, I'd have a script/block/setting to prevent animations and flashes (already block videos just for their irritation when unexpected/unwanted). Twitter can do what it wants, but I as the person surfing the net can simply say 'no'.

Not going to defend the person sending it: he demonstrated intent to injure and was successful in it. Do however feel due diligence is required if you have a medical condition that is visually triggered...

I haven't seen the image or the tweet, but if it gets masked as something simple and innocent, say a video claiming to be source material for whatever he's working on - he's an author, after all - which suddenly cuts to a strobe light... That's deliberate.

The problem with this is that their is no good side to this. Maybe loads of people will be now be charged and jailed over what amounts to whiplash. Some injury that cannot be proven, but easily alleged.

And you know right now he is being bombarded on all sides with hundreds of similar tweets. The first forum I read about this on started immediately to send similar images to him in retaliation. Someone in Somalia will never have to worry about the FBI arresting them for an "assault Tweet", so will not think t

Speaking as a leftist who has a personal hatred of Nazis (on top of all the general hatred), I think we need to wait until they violate criminal law before they're brought to justice. I do believe in these formalities.

We're treading dangerously into territory where you're trying to read minds. You would have to prove intent..... you would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you intended to and actually believed that your actions would harm someone. The burden of proof would be very particular because sending that same email to 99% of the population, even including many epileptics, would do no harm.

Well, that tweet was sent with a note of "you deserve a seizure" alongside it, which pretty much confirms intent

The law doesn't try to carefully enumerate every method by which you might injure someone so that a clever criminal can say "haha! I invented a new weapon, so now it is legal for me to injure people with it because it isn't on the list of weapons that existed decades ago when the law was written!"

The law says attempting to hurt someone with a weapon that might be lethal is "assault with a deadly weapon", so if the prosecutor can show that you intended to hurt so

But if you are bragging in writing about how you are going to cause someone to have a seizure by sending them a strobe gif, then it probably isn't hard to convince a jury that you intended to cause inujury, and it shouldn't be hard to find an expert witness to testify that it is quite possble to die from an epileptic seizure.

The twitter account also had DMs where he'd bragged about how he hoped he'd die, and there was a Wikipedia page with an edit showing the victim's death the next day.

It's actually very, very different. A powerful green laser shined into someone's eyes will cause harm to exactly 100% of the people or animals on earth..... a strobe gif might cause a seizure in.0001% of the population and wouldn't even effect the majority of controlled epileptics.

A strobe gif in an email is illegal, really? How are you going to prosecute that?

Well, you have the police investigate, they find evidence that you sent this email, then they find evidence that you sent it with the intent of hurting someone, then you get sent, to court, then you get convicted, then you go to jail. That's how this gets prosecuted.

A strobe gif in an email is illegal, really? How are you going to prosecute that?

Well it depends on the state. In most states you bring charges to a grand jury which examines the basis for the charge and issues and indictment, then Bob's your uncle. In some states you can file what's called an "information", which leads to a preliminary hearing. Either way, you have to show that you have some basis for prosecution, and then it's on to the jury trial.

In the jury trial, you have to convince ALL twelve jurors that the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. To do that you have to

It's about deliberate and demonstrable intent. Furthermore, it's about intent that can be proven in a court of law. In this case, the guy not only sent the image to someone known publicly to suffer seizures of this kind, he explicitly stated it was his intent to give the guy a seizure, and thereby do harm to him.

If I post up a flashing image on the FlashingObnoxiousGifs site, that's like my eating a peanut butter sandwich, or shooting my rifle at a firing range. It's not going to hurt anyone, unless they're being really really dumb.

If on the other hand, I deliberately try to serve cookies containing peanuts to you, knowing you're deathly allergic to peanuts, and tell someone that my intention is to do you harm, then yes, that's illegal and I should expect to be charged, much the same as if I'd laced them with a more generally toxic compound.
Likewise, if I turn around on the range and point the rifle at you, and pull the trigger, yelling 'eat lead motherf*cker', then uh, yeah, I'm kinda deliberately trying to harm you.

If on the other hand, I deliberately try to serve cookies containing peanuts to you, knowing you're deathly allergic to peanuts

Peanut allergy is real. So, apparently, is the effect of strobing images on epileptics. But it is still worrying...

Recall, that "trigger warnings" are already "a thing". What if my political opinion "triggers" somebody — causing them pain and/or other suffering? For now, such snowflakes are content to escape the brutal realities of life in "safe spaces". Unfortunately, those

Peanut allergy is real. So, apparently, is the effect of strobing images on epileptics. But it is still worrying...

No it really isn't. Attempt to cause actual harm as always been illegal. Doing it by an unusual mechanism has never been an excuse. Likewise doing crimes over the internet does not make them less as crimes.

Recall, that "trigger warnings" are already "a thing".

Yes? I don't understand the mindset that considers them to be a bad thing. They're a basic form of politeness saying essentially "the fol

Handing out copies of the Constitution on campus was disallowed recently by the university officials [thecollegefix.com]:

“This isn’t really the ’60s anymore... people can’t really protest like that anymore.”

See? Ostensibly, the Bill of Rights in general and the First Amendment in particular are still the Law of the Land. But in reality they no longer work as they used to. Our republic is barely 200 years old. Things have already

It's about deliberate and demonstrable intent. Furthermore, it's about intent that can be proven in a court of law. In this case, the guy not only sent the image to someone known publicly to suffer seizures of this kind, he explicitly stated it was his intent to give the guy a seizure, and thereby do harm to him.

that makes sense...

didn't know he stated that explicitly...some DA bucking for a promotion might latch onto that and make a big headline-grabbing case out of it...that explaination is rational

Because the jerks/trolls who'd do stuff like this will become more sophisticated. Instead of attaching a GIF, they'll use an embedded link which auto-loads the image from a server. And the server will only send the "bad" image the first time, substituting an innocuous image for subsequent viewings.

Here's to hoping this leads to all email clients gaining an option to block automatic loading of animated GIFs and/or embedded image links.

It should be straightforward to write a filter to detect animated images with luminance variations of the right amplitude and frequency to cause seizures in susceptible individuals. These individuals could then enable the filter and be spared from this type of attack.

I wonder why the various browser and email application vendors have not implemented such, for ADA purposes.

...I can honestly say I'm no longer surprised by stupid shit like this. All those YouTubers with "RIP headphone users" videos better watch out, because if some people don't know how to turn their fucking brightness down so their computer/phone doesn't give them a seizure, claims of hearing damage from excessive volume can't be far off.

I have no love whatsoever for Twitter trolls (and the thought of one being arrested by the FBI almost seems like karma), but the FBI should've told this fuckwit to turn his i

Actually, I think that will be a question for the jury. Consider this one.

There was a vehicular homicide case in NJ where a guy was driving way over the speed limit and had a crash which ended up killing his passenger. The fact that the passenger wasn't wearing a seatbelt at the time was ruled admissible as evidence for the defense. The jury could thus consider whether it was reckless driving that caused the death or if it was the victim's failure to buckle their seatbelt

Right. That's not going to be hard. He's being charged with cyberstalking, but just for factual reference, this is from the DOJ:

"Evidence received pursuant to a search warrant showed Rivello’s Twitter account contained direct messages from Rivello’s account to other Twitter users concerning the victim. Among those direct messages included statements by Rivello, including “I hope this sends him into a seizure,” “Spammed this at [victim] let’s see if he dies,” and